From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3692 invoked by alias); 22 Apr 2014 13:06:58 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 3682 invoked by uid 89); 22 Apr 2014 13:06:58 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=3.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPAM_BODY1 autolearn=no version=3.3.2 X-HELO: rock.gnat.com Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Tue, 22 Apr 2014 13:06:57 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02865116122; Tue, 22 Apr 2014 09:06:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id JU+LzFxdufd4; Tue, 22 Apr 2014 09:06:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D29A7116124; Tue, 22 Apr 2014 09:06:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id C9677E0C2B; Tue, 22 Apr 2014 06:06:52 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 15:40:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Gary Benson Cc: Stan Shebs , gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Patchwork patch tracking system Message-ID: <20140422130652.GG5790@adacore.com> References: <20140402100842.GA956@blade.nx> <533F3713.40700@earthlink.net> <20140417135040.GA891@blade.nx> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20140417135040.GA891@blade.nx> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-SW-Source: 2014-04/txt/msg00073.txt.bz2 > > So if we try it and like it, how does one go about transitioning > > from "trial" to "real"? > > I guess by the people doing the reviewing deciding to use it. > It may be it is useful even with only a subset of reviewers > using it. I can't determine this myself, I need feedback from > people who are reviewing regularly. In my opinion, the GDB project is in dire need of a way to track patches. Using one's mailbox to track patches just does not work. But I think that we would need full commitment to the tool from the project, or else it'd quickly start overflowing with stale info. There is a tool that we use internally at AdaCore which I was starting to think of proposing for GDB, called geritt. From what I have been able to see from patchwork's webpage, geritt seems like a much more advanced system compared to patchwork. But the tradeoff is that using geritt requires a bit more work as well, and that part or all of the review process would happen on geritt, rather than the mailing-list. It's not very intuitive at first, but it is very easy and lightweight. I personally believe geritt's approach to be better in the long run. But, while I am worried about having communication and patch handling be done via two distinct systems, patchwork's simpler approach might be working well enough without requiring the big shift in patch-reviewing paradigm. -- Joel